www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Role of the Deacon, East-n-West

I can not remember where I read this but there was a letter to the editor in a catholic publication from an individual that was very upset as to the place of the deacon in the Roman Mass. That during the Mass he sits next to the celebrating priest while any concelebrating priests must sit elsewhere. This individual thought that concelebrating priests should sit with the celebrant.

Later in the reply from the editor it was stated that new rules have come out that when there is no deacon present but there is a concelebrating priest, that this priest should fulfill the role of the deacon.

Doesn't this blur the lines between deacon and priest? In the Latin Church, where they are attempting to restore the permanent Diaconate, it appears that the deacon is nothing more than a junior priest. Which I think can be seen to make sense when the deacon was a transitional step to the priesthood. The deacon baptizes, presides at weddings, and at the Mass his role is to take parts that the priest normally does. There really is no role, that I can see, for the deacon in the Latin Church. Whereas in the Byzantine Church, a Divine Liturgy without a deacon is a sad event, in my mind.

Well, I just am looking for some comment and discussion on this topic.


Your brother in Christ,
David

Dear David and All:

You bring up a good point for discussion on the various roles in the liturgical assembly and past and present ways in which these ministries have been played out.

I am surprised to learn that it is being suggested that in the Latin Rite liturgy, a priest would take over the role of the deacon. To understand this idea, more would have to be known about what was meant by that comment. If a mass is celebrated with a priest, deacon and concelebrating clergy, the practice described would actually be correct, in that the deacon would sit or stand near the celebrant, so as to be on hand for whatever roles the liturgy prescribes to him. The same is true in our ritual, where the deacon, when at the altar, stands to the direct right of the celebrant, assisting in various functions of the liturgy. It has nothing to do with giving a greater sense of importance to the office of deacon, but rather, with an eye on the practical fulfillment of the roles assigned to him in assisting the priest-celebrant. Likewise, in our ritual, when there are two deacons serving, then the first deacon stands to the celebrant's right and the second deacon to his left.

You are correct that in the Roman liturgy, the actual role of the deacon is not as pronounced as in the Byzantine Rite. In the Roman Church, to my knowledge, a deacon merely assists the priest in certain functions, such as the preparation of the gifts, incensing, distribution of communion, etc. and has some particular roles that, in his absence, are normally performed by the priest anyway, such as the proclamation of the Gospel, dismissing the faithful at the end of mass, etc.

In the Byzantine Liturgy, there are also roles that when a deacon is not serving, the priest-celebrant takes on himself, including the ektenias (litanies) invitations to prayer (wisdom, let us be attentive, let us stand aright . . . ). In addition to these however, there is much dialogue that transpires between the priest and deacon that, in the absence of diaconal service, are not taken in their stead, by a priest or bishop. These include personal communication between the deacon and the celebrant, asking for prayer and spiritual assistance, meant to call attention to and solemnize certain important parts of the service or mark a transition to another section of the liturgy. In these cases, it would be out of place to continue to recite them if a deacon is not assisting.

I understand what you mean in referring to the Byzantine liturgy without a deacon, since so much of the service book assumes that one is present, but I would not go so far as to say that a Byzantine liturgy without a deacon is all that "sad." Although more parishes are beginning to enjoy the regular ministry of a deacon, and this should be encouraged, it is still the general parochial norm that the Divine Liturgy is celebrated by a priest alone, and it works quite well that way too.

What comes as a surprise is that someone in the Roman Church would suggest that a priest-concelebrant should function as a deacon at a mass in which a deacon is not serving. Before the Second Vatican Council, the functioning of priests in deacon's or subdeacon's roles was very commonplace. In the Tridentine Rite, at a "solemn high mass," the three roles of celebrant, deacon and subdeacon were required to celebrate such a liturgy. This was especially done in pontifical masses, where the bishop was assisted by certain priests chosen for either their position in relation to the bishop's curia, parochial assignment or a particular talent for functioning in these roles. This was before the days of "concelebration" which in the pre-concilliar Latin Rite was not allowed. Sometimes, two senior priests would assist the bishop at the altar, but these were not "concelebrants" in a technical sense but rather referred to as "archpriests" emphasizing their role in that particular mass. These priests did not necessarily vest in all of the "mass vestments" but I believe that they wore a slightly different form of vesture. Someone else here may be able to describe exactly what that was.

After the liturgical reforms of the council, concelebration was once again allowed in the Latin Rite and the roles of deacon, subdeacon and assisting priests were not required as they were previously. If no deacon or subdeacon (an order now suppressed anyway) were present, these roles are not now taken on by other clerics. The role of the concelebrants was rediscovered and has evolved into what we know today.

In the Byzantine Rite, concelebration was never abolished and has continued up to our day. The Roman reforms looked to our liturgy to rediscover the proper role of concelebration. In the "latinizing days" however, some of our bishops decided that it was best to imitate the outward forms of the Roman "solemn high mass" and place priests in the defined roles of deacon and "archpriest" at a pontifical divine liturgy. Especially during the reign of Bishop Elko, every pontifical liturgy had a precise list of liturgical roles, complete with celebrant, archpriests, and deacons I and II. The concelebrating priests, although allowed by our liturgical regulations, were limited to two (occasionally four) senior clergy who would assist the bishop at the altar. These priests were either fully vested, as is proper, or often, vested only in phelon and epitrachil, emphasizing their diminished role in the service.

It should be noted that priests, when fulfilling the role of a deacon, did not vest in priestly vestments, but rather, in all of the diaconal garb. This was true in both rites. Also, the roles of "assistensia" or those attending the bishop at a pontifical divine liturgy, rather than performed by minor clergy or servers, were also mostly fulfilled by priests, who wore the cassock and epitrachil and were assigned to carry the bishop's mitre, crosier, trikerion and dikerion. This in itself is not an abuse and today, there are not always enough priests present to serve as assistensia. Rather, this practice was part of an overall highly "clerialized" period.

The irony here is that there were often ordained deacons present at these services, but they were not allowed to function in their proper liturgical roles. Instead, priests known for their good quality of voice and finesse at liturgical actions and movements were chosen to serve with the bishop at pontifical liturgies. Rarely were actual deacons ever performing these functions, except in the seminary or at an everyday divine liturgy. This was certainly a liturgical abuse that took the focus off of the proper roles of each order in the liturgical assembly. The Latin Rite operated along similar if not exact priorities in choosing clerics to perform the various roles.

On an historical note, the very last time that I witnessed priests serving as deacons at one of our celebrations was at the occasion of the dual anniversary of Metropolitan Archbishop Stephan J. Kocisko, DD, held at Holy Spirit Church in the Oakland section of Pittsburgh in 1982. This observance celebrated the 40th. priestly and 25th. episcopal jubilees of Archbishop Kocisko and was attended by many dignitaries, including Cardinal Ruben, then prefect of the Oriental Congregation, representing His Holiness, the Pope. After this event, I do not recall any with priests functioning outside of their ordained roles, although there could have been others that I am unaware of. If anyone knows of any after this date, I'd be interested to know.

With the development of a better liturgical understanding in both Rites, the use of priest-deacons, archpriests and the like was abolished, in favor of allowing the clergy to serve in their proper liturgical roles. This certainly was a positive change, which gave a better emphasis to the ministry of each order, not only within the liturgy itself, but with a connection to the overall service that those in these orders provide to the community as a whole. It is now a matter of bringing "to the liturgy" that offering of self, actualized through specific ministries and roles in the Christian community. We need to even further develop the proper role of each sacred order in our churches. Ordained subdeacons, lectors and cantors, and deacons should be encouraged, so that the assembly may reflect that "order of ministry" which the church has been structured on for centuries. When each order is present in the liturgy, a natural framework unfolds, making the celebration of the Eucharist a living experience, truly reflective of the People of God as one Body, meeting the diverse needs of all.

Fr. Joe

[ 06-28-2002: Message edited by: Fr. Joe ]

Father, bless.

I think the "archpriests" would be vested in cassock, surplice, and cope (and maybe stole?).

As a Latin, I do not think the Latin Church needs permanent deacons at all.

In our Traditional Latin Rite, there is not a need for deacons..the Low Mass (Missa Privata) and Missa Cantata specifically are for only a priest and no other clergy. In the Solemn High Mass (Missa Solemnis) priests can fill the role of deacon and subdeacon, as you said.

In the Novus Ordo rite, a priest performs all the functions of a deacon (except maybe one, which a layperson will do) anyways, when one is not there.

In Jesu et Maria,
Justin

Fr. Joe,

Thank you. So are so learned and yet have the ability to express your knowledge in a pastoral and understandable way for those of us who are not academics.

I think the Latin Church is developing a wonderful renewal of the non-liturgical minsitries of the Office of Deacon and hope we of the East might learn from them. Certainly the former latin practice was an abuse.

Axios

Gregorian, the practice of priests playing deacon or subdeacon at the Solemn High Mass is an abuse, not a venerable tradition. This practice did not exist before the 13th century or so. The liturgical roles of the subdeacon and deacon are part of the charisma of those orders, and the presbyter should not assume or consume these, as of course he has his own distinct liturgical role.

The Roman Church is absolutely right on in returning the permanent diaconate, and is actually restoring an older tradition than the practices you mention. It will take time, patience and good research to fully restore the role and dignity of the permanent diaconate, both in liturgical and non-liturgical roles. I don't understand how anyone can say that deacons are not needed when they are of Apostolic origin (check out St. Stephen in the Acts of the Apostles).

It is time the "traditionalists" of the Latin Church look beyond Trent and the Counter-Reformation and see a bigger picture of liturgical tradition. I'm not even going to get started on the Low Mass issue...

I have really appreciated the posts of Fr. Joe and Axios on this issue, great stuff, guys...in our particular law for the Ukrainain Catholic Church in the U.S. we have a provision now also for a permanent subdiaconate as well as diaconate...I hope we can get some takers...
Subdeacon Randolph, a sinner

Subdeacon Randolph,

Just because a man is ordained to the priesthood, doesn't mean he loses his deaconate or subdeaconate. He still holds those orders.

What is wrong with Low Mass? I have read that many Irish Catholics preferred the Low Mass. The Irish Catholics really helped to build the Catholic Church in America.

In Jesu et Maria.
Justin

[ 06-30-2002: Message edited by: Gregorian ]

Your reply shows how far from the ancient understanding of holy orders the "traditional" Latin church has digressed. There are particular qualities, functions, and charismas associated with each order. At least the Latin Church since Vatican II is attempting to recapture some of this praxis in restoration of the permanent diaconate and I applaud the effort.

I don't agree that the period from Trent to the 1960s was normative at all considering the bigger picture of organic liturgical development in the west prior to this, which in many ways was stymied or stagnated. The quest for absolute liturgical uniformity which arose post-Trent and especially in the last 200 years caused the demise of the Gallican and other ritual traditions in the Latin West.

The Instruction for Applying the Liturgical Prescriptions of the Eastern Code of Canons specifically states that the practice of presbyters acting in the roles of different orders other than the presbyterate, such as acting the role of deacons, is "to be eliminated". That's clear enough, I think. We are trying in the East to regain our own tradition of respecting the charisma of the minor orders and the diaconate as unique and a definite part of the hierarchial nature of the Church and her assembly of faithful.

During a baseball game, one doesn't go back to second base after they have reached third base just to do it or show it can be done. There is an ordered hierarchy in holy orders, and the progression is properly one way, up, not down.

And getting back to the Low Mass, although off topic, I prefer to participate in liturgy, not a private devotion of the priest. People praying rosaries or reading prayers in silence while a priest is mumbling, barely to not audible, is not something I can feel that I participate in fully and consciously. A sung High Mass, however, is an entirely different thing that should be the primary corporate worship of those who want to practice the Traditional Latin Mass. Some friends who are priests I know in the Fraternity of St. Peter use a dialogue form of the Low Mass in order to foster participation, but even this is not the same as the High Mass.

The Low Mass was initiated as a particular concession to monastic communities where there were large numbers of priests and they had forgotten the ancient and venerable sense of proper concelebration (we have always maintained it in the Byzantine tradition). The "dialogue Mass" is a step in the right direction, however, but still merely a secondary substitute for the majesty of the High Mass.

Back on topic, from Scripture is it clear that the deacons had a particular role that was distinct from the Apostles. I still am having great difficulty with your previous statement that deacons are not necessary. Do you really have enough priests to cover every function in the church? Deacons, readers, altar servers? I don't think so. I maintain that it is for the benefit of the universal Church, East and West, that the role, dignity, and charisma of the diaconate and minor orders be recognized and fostered. This is returning to the authentic tradition, both in East and West, and not a late-coming set of aberrations where the priest plays all of the liturgical roles apportioned to those in those orders.

I will concede that you have a point about deacons. Remember though our minor orders and subdiaconate were supressed by Paul VI. However, I still do not think deacons have been as important in the Latin Church as in the Eastern Churches, and so the permanent diaconate died out.

I don't like arguements about the early Church doing this or that, because people have used that to introduce communion in the hand and the like.

I will not agree about Low Mass.

Sure it may not be the best for a Sunday Mass, but for daily Mass it is just fine.

In Jesu et Maria,
Justin

The practice is forbidden specifically in the Latin church that the priest should take on the role of the deacon. This prohibition was passed in the late mid-1960's as the restoration was being worked out.

It is difficult to compare the history of the deacon in the West and East too simply. The dynamics were different in both and greatly affected the deacon and deaconess both. There was a complex history which played out in the Western church leading to the diminishment of the deacon. And this was somewhat tied to the diminished view of the bishop when his office became considered in the west as an honor and not substance for ordination to the episcopacy. Note that both the episcopacy and the diaconate (closely related) were relooked at Vatican II. The episcopacy was returned to its ancient role as vicar of Christ, not vicar of the pope, and the diaconate was restored partially to assist this reinvigorated role of the bishop.

I could write you a very long response, but I already wrote a whole book on the topic. It was published last year.

Deacon Doug

Father Deacon,
I have two requests, if you do not mind.

First.

Could you expound a bit on the issue you stated above, "The episcopacy was returned to its ancient role as vicar of Christ, not vicar of the pope". I know this is off topic but I am actually in discussion with an Oriential Orthodox friend of mine who says that Lumen Gentium appears to say that bishops derive all their power through the Pope and that the Pope is the only necessary person and/or office in the Church. You can email me on this if you wish.

Second.

I think this is a good time to plug your book.

What is the title and where can I find it?


David

[ 07-03-2002: Message edited by: DavidB ]

David
I can catch both questions with one stone. My book is "The Deacon as Icon of Christ" and is available from either Amazon.com or directly from the publisher>Title: "The Deacon as Icon of Christ"
> >Author: Deacon Douglas M. LeClair
> >Publisher: Catholic Sun Publishing
> >112 pages
> >April 2001, ISBN# 1-931461-00-7
> >phone 602) 257-5569
> >fax: (602) 258-6404
> >mail: Catholic Sun Publishing
> >P.O. Box 13549
> >Phoenix, Arizona 85002-3549
> >E-mail: ascarpati@catholicsun.org <mailto:ascarpati@catholicsun.org>
> >
> >$12.00 U.S. funds plus shipping.

I addressed the issue of the episcopacy and the diaconate therein. The 1983 Code of Canon Law for the Latin Church also canonizes the current theology that the bishop has all of the power and authority he needs to lead his diocese.

Dcn Doug

Dear Father Deacon,

You couldn't give us a "Reader's Digest" version?

I'm afraid you just might set a precedent here, and someone like our Stuart will start up an on-line book kiosk here . . .

But if you don't remember what you wrote then we understand . . .

Alex

At the enthronement of Bishop Pavlo as Exarch of the UGCC in the UK one of the priests of the Exarchate served as a deacon. Sadly, there was a good reason - we have no deacons, permanent or otherwise, in the UK. He wasn't chosen at random, though. He knows services well and has a good voice. The choir and cantors were very grateful for this last qualification.